Nothing says 4th of July like painting over a mural of George Washington

I do wonder how the historians in the future will discuss this time in American history.. I suppose if the liberal progressive movement is successful in destroying or rewriting history they will call this something like the second Renascence period of western culture. The mural in one section does show an dead Indian and slaves working on a plantation so instead of painting over that one section the whole thing has to go..... Myself I find it absurd and disgusting. I also would find it hard to believe anyone who has read just a touch of history about George Washington would find this acceptable and normal.. Yep their school and they can do anything they want. I would have removed the mural (even if the whole wall had to be taken out which would probably have been cheaper than the reported 600,000 for a new paint job) and sold it to raise funds for the school but since this is the left coast maybe they thought there would be no buyers or as in the tradition of book burning better to remove all traces ?

Here’s a heartwarming story that will surely inspire patriots across the nation right around the country’s birthday. Out in San Francisco (where else?), there’s a school that has a massive mural depicting the life and times of George Washington. That seems rather appropriate since the school in question is George Washington High School. The mural consists of multiple panels and has been in place for more than eighty years. But it’s 2019, so what are we going to do? Paint it over, of course, because Washington is “problematic.” (Associated Press)

San Francisco will spend up to $600,000 to paint over historical artwork at a public school depicting the life of George Washington, a mural once seen as educational and innovative but now criticized as racist and degrading for its depiction of black and Native American people.

The “Life of Washington” was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression. The San Francisco School Board’s decision to paint over the 83-year-old mural is prompting some to worry that other artwork from the so-called New Deal era could face a similar fate because of changing sensitivities.

hotair.com...

Maybe I am having a hormone attack and am super sensitive today about all things progressive and stupid.. if so EXCUSE ME !

Sorry, but does it really say $600,000 to paint a wall????

The word is that wages are going up. Plus kickbacks now have kickbacks.

For a start I'm 100% against painting over the mural, but in my mind this also highlights very serious Gov spending problem. I live in Spain where this sort of thing is common. Entire airports that not only cost 10 times the initial quote, but were then never opened and abandoned. Is there no sort of oversight for this sort of spending?

It would be hilarious if the paint brand they use was a company started by a former slave owner. Would they pay another 600K plus to paint over it again. It would make a good TV show episode. The school ends of up spending all the sports and art dept budgets on painting walls. Town goes into a massive riot.

Greed and corruption are now so common place that painting some areas on a wall in a public school costs over half a million.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
For a start I'm 100% against painting over the mural, but in my mind this also highlights very serious Gov spending problem. I live in Spain where this sort of thing is common. Entire airports that not only cost 10 times the initial quote, but were then never opened and abandoned. Is there no sort of oversight for this sort of spending?

Politicians are retarded these days. And it is a fact.

Why not just get some material, a seamstress, some cotton and make some slip on covers rather than erasing history.

Illegal immigrant seamstress $8.88 /Hr.

Get the community to donate pride flags.

Make the covers out of the flags.

Crap! I used the word 'cotton.'

I'm obviously done!

P

a reply to: 727Sky


Is this the same mural that had the Native American taking a dirt nap?

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I like it and has a high percentage chance of being true.

The California School Disaster

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Two coats. Quality paint.

I am uneasy as to how small vocal minorities are able to trample common sense and historical context.

There was a similar roll of stupidity in a university in England not so long ago. Someone took offence to a mural which only depicted white men in it. It was later pointed out that the mural was of those killed from the university in the Great War.

Stupid people strike again

30 years from now people will be upset there are no Indians in mural.

a reply to: 727Sky

So when does the petition to rename the state of Washington begin?

In response to the growing awareness that the first president, George Washington, was a slave owner, a growing movement has developed in the Bay Area where people are burning their one-dollar bills.

Merchants in the area have also started refusing to carry the disgusting notes and have raised their prices accordingly in order not to have to use the one-dollar bills.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has initiated a "Round Up To 5" Drive so that the one dollar bill can be effectively banned state-wide.

IMadeThisUp.com

Well... it's certainly an interesting case! And dripping with all types of irony, I'd say.

It's a mural painted by a Russian immigrant-- a communist-- depicting George Washington as a slave holder and as a mastermind/general of the Native genocide-- which is being decried by activists as racist (when in reality it appears to be a condemnation of Washington and genocide) and being defended by patriots (while the mural appears to be glaringly critical of the U.S. and Washington).

Located in San Francisco's George Washington High School, the 1,600-square foot mural was painted by Russian-born immigrant and communist Victor Arnautoff in 1937 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration.

www.commondreams.org...



In my opinion, it reminds me of the mural at DIA. It has validity as a work of art... but the location (a high school) is very odd and not that appropriate without any context.

a reply to: zosimov

Art is an example of free speech, free expression.


To paint over art that some consider offensive is akin to burning books.

In my humble opinion.

a reply to: DBCowboy
I agree with you and with the open letter (qtd in part below)
But I think that exposing youth to divisive/evocative art without any effort to put it into context could do more harm than good.
I am anti censorship myself, but that doesn't mean I let my kids watch/read everything out there. Although I do admit that, even though I am earnestly trying my best, I don't know what I am doing as a parent and simply want the best for my kids (and other kids out there).

Now, however, activists including a number of students are seeking the destruction—not the concealment or contextualization—of the mural. The reasons they give—in public comment, in interviews, in the board's statements—are various, but they all depend on rejecting the objective analysis of historical exploitation and colonial violence the mural offers and replacing it with activists’ valorization of their experiences of discomfort with the imagery and the authorship of the murals. On this account, a Russian immigrant cannot denounce historical wrongs by depicting them critically. On this account, only members of the affected communities can speak to such issues and only representations of history that affirm values they approve are suitable for their communities. On this account, representing historical misdeeds is degrading to some members of today's student body. In a recent vote, the board of the San Francisco Unified School District voted unanimously to destroy the murals. To repeat: they voted to destroy a significant monument of anti-racism. This is a gross violation of logic and sense.

a reply to: zosimov

If I read your quote correctly, the board and students are not upset because someone was critical of Washington, but someone they did not think was worthy or deemed appropriate to BE critical of Washington?


So just a few in society gets to determine whom may or may not be critical of anything.

Disturbing.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: zosimov

If I read your quote correctly, the board and students are not upset because someone was critical of Washington, but someone they did not think was worthy or deemed appropriate to BE critical of Washington?


So just a few in society gets to determine whom may or may not be critical of anything.

Disturbing.

I'm sure the reasons for being upset were as varied as the individual, but there seemed to be one prominent spokesperson who said:

"No one has the right to tell us as native people—or our young people who walk those halls everyday—how they feel," Paloma Flores, the San Francisco school district's Native American education program coordinator, said during a hearing on the mural last month. "You're not in those shoes."

It's that same crappy argument used against men who want to add to the abortion debate-- you're not a woman so you can't have a say!

a reply to: zosimov


Art does not dictate.

Art suggests. It invokes.

It spurs thought, not commands it.